Resolved,
	That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there will be laid before this House a Return of the Report of the Spoliation Advisory Panel in respect of a 12th Century manuscript now in the possession of the British Library.—[Vernon Coaker.]

Eddie McGrady: The Secretary of State has often spoken here about the need to restore trust as a prelude to political progress. Does he accept that there has been a gross betrayal of trust by the Government in their failure to implement the Cory report in respect of the Finucane case? The same Lord Cory in whom the Government must have had 100 per cent. confidence, or they would not have appointed him, says of the Inquiries Bill
	"It seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible . . . I cannot contemplate any self-respecting . . . judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed act."
	Does that not constitute a betrayal of the pledge made at Weston Park and subsequently that the Cory report would be fully endorsed by the Government?

John Prescott: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes some very reasonable points, which are presently being discussed by European Foreign Ministers. We have to make a judgment, and strike an appropriate balance. There is no doubt that both Europe and America want better relations with China, and one of the conditions is that we talk about human rights as well as trade. China is emerging more and more into the world. Good progress is being made towards peaceful coexistence, and that contrasts with the tensions that exist when there is no dialogue with such countries.

John Prescott: I have no doubt that even in South Bedfordshire there is a desire for housing, and that we are not building sufficient of it . Our challenge is to ensure that more houses are built. The real concern that I hear expressed by people is that we will be using up more green space, but the reality is that our policies have increased house building on brownfield sites from the previous Administration's 57 per cent. to 67 per cent. We have also increased the density in these areas, so that we are now going to build 200,000 more houses in the growth areas on less land than was envisaged in 1979. We are saving a land space equivalent to Oxford, which I think is a good move. We have houses, we use land more efficiently, and we use brownfield sites; that sounds to me like a good common-sense policy.

John Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the despicable conduct of the high street banks HSBC, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Alliance and Leicester, and the ATM companies Hanco and Cardpoint, in charging pensioners and people on benefit, as well as those in rural areas, for the use of ATMs? What will the Government do to ensure that those people, who have the least of money, are looked after?

Michael Ancram: After eight years of Labour Government, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell me how much violent crime has risen?

John Prescott: The whole House will agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the death of Milly. Our thoughts go to the parents at this moment and to the police, who have a very difficult job in such circumstances—as do all police forces—and we wish them well in dealing with those difficult matters. In fairness, it is true to say that the resources that we have given to the police authorities has increased considerably. I note what the chief constable is saying in Surrey, and one or two others are saying similar things. We are looking at that, but without a doubt the resources that we have given are considerable, whether for the numbers of police officers or for the support units. [Interruption.] There is always an argument about the resources, but under this Government it is about increased resources, not reduced resources.

John Prescott: I recognise a lot of what my hon. Friend says, because I have visited the plant on a number of occasions. It is a very successful plant, but what impressed me most about it was the fact that many miners who had been thrown out of work by the previous Administration's programmes were now working in the car industry, and were proud to do so. In fact, unemployment has fallen yet again in that area. That is yet another example of why the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) could go to Germany and say:
	"Quite honestly I go to Germany now, and they say to me I wish we had your unemployment."
	That is under this Labour Government: record employment, more people back to work and, curiously enough, more people paying tax, to the benefit of the community, instead of our having to borrow to keep them on the dole. That is the difference in the policies.

Nick Raynsford: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on council tax in 2005–06 and the action that the Government propose to take in response to those local authorities that have set excessive budgets.
	Figures released today confirm that the average council tax increase in England in 2005–06 will be 4.1 per cent. That is the lowest council tax increase in more than a decade, and the second lowest ever. The reason why council tax increases have come down markedly compared with previous years is twofold. First, the Government have provided another good settlement for local authorities, which was approved by the House on 2 February. For the third year in succession, all authorities will receive a grant increase in line with or above inflation in 2005–06, and many will receive substantially more. The average formula grant increase from Government is 5.6 per cent. Adding in specific grants to authorities takes the increase up to 6.3 per cent. We have increased funding for local government by 33 per cent. in real terms since 1997, which is in stark contrast to a 7 per cent. reduction in the four years up to 1997.
	Secondly, the Government's judicious use of their capping powers has shown how seriously we view the need to protect council tax payers against excessive increases. In 2004–05, when we made it clear that we were prepared to use our reserve capping powers for the first time, the average increase in council tax dropped from 12.9 per cent. to 5.9 per cent. The 2005–06 increase has come down even further, to 4.1 per cent.
	Given our substantial investment in local government and the scope for efficiency gains, we gave a clear message to all authorities about council tax in 2005–06. We said that we expected to see an average increase of less than 5 per cent. I set that out in a letter to all local authority leaders on 9 December. At the same time, I informed them that we were once again prepared to use our capping powers to deal with excessive increases. I later wrote to the individual authorities that, despite our warnings, were reported as proposing high increases. We informed them that the 2004–05 capping principles should not be considered a benchmark for 2005–06, thus making it quite clear that we were prepared to take even tougher capping action than we did in 2004–05.
	I am pleased to say that the vast majority of authorities have responded positively to the Government's strong message on council tax. That is borne out by the fact that we now have the lowest increase in more than a decade. I congratulate all those authorities. I know that most authorities are taking seriously the need to minimise demands on their council tax payers. However, there remain a small number of authorities that have set excessive budget and council tax increases, which is why I am again this year making a statement to the House about the action that we propose to take against authorities whose budget requirements are excessive.
	I should like to remind hon. Members of the provisions of the capping legislation. In order to determine whether budgets are excessive, we must consider a comparison of the authority's budget requirement for 2005–06 with that of the previous year. The legislation also allows us to determine other principles such as increases in council tax. In 2004–05, we determined a range of budget and council tax principles for different categories of authority. This was in recognition of specific factors affecting those types of authority that year. I detailed the principles when I reported to the House on 29 April last year.
	For 2005–06, we made it clear that we were prepared to take tougher capping action than last time, and that the principles used in 2004–05 should not be taken as a benchmark. Our view is that authorities' 2005–06 budget requirements are excessive if they show an increase of more than 6 per cent. over their 2004–05 budget, and if their council tax has increased by more than 5.5 per cent. over the same period. These principles have been applied to all authorities.
	According to the principles that I have described, nine authorities have set excessive budgets for 2005–06. They are Aylesbury Vale, Daventry, Hambleton, Huntingdonshire, Mid Bedfordshire,North Dorset, Runnymede, Sedgemoor and South Cambridgeshire. We are writing to these authorities today informing them of our decision to designate them with a view to capping them in year and notifying them of the maximum budget that we propose to set for each of them.
	The authorities now have 21 days in which to respond. We will carefully consider the information that we have required them to send us, along with any other representations they make, before we take final decisions. We can then either make an order to be approved by Parliament designating them at the level of the proposed maximum budget or another level, or we can withdraw the designation and nominate them instead.
	Hon. Members will recall that in 2004–05, we took capping action against 14 authorities. Six were designating for capping in year, and a further eight were nominated and set notional budgets for the purpose of future capping comparisons. I am pleased to say that none of the authorities against which we took capping action in 2004–05 has set an excessive budget in 2005–06. This, and the fact that the average council tax increase in 2005–06 is the lowest in a decade, shows that although we have used it only reluctantly, capping has been effective in restraining council tax increases.
	We would, of course, have preferred not to use our capping powers. We would not have had to take action if all local authorities had heeded our clear message about increases in 2005–06. However, we also have a duty to protect council tax payers from excessive increases, and we will continue to do so. The actions that we are taking represent a measured response.
	If anyone thought that the Government's capping action in 2004–05 was a one-off, they will surely now think again. The message that we are giving is loud and clear. High council tax increases are a thing of the past. The public will not tolerate excessive council tax increases either now or in years to come—and neither will the Government.

Eric Pickles: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me early sight of the statement. He has always been prompt in providing these things, and he has been customarily courteous.
	The statement comes exactly one month earlier than normal—a period that occupiers of the right hon. Gentleman's office usually have for quiet reflection on which authorities to use their powers on. This is perhaps the clearest indication that the House might be too preoccupied in late April to attend to a capping statement.
	I am sure that the statement would have benefited from more reflection by the right hon. Gentleman, but it speaks volumes about the Government's treatment of council tax. For eight years, they have wrung their hands and done nothing. They have watched council tax go through the roof and increase by more than 70 per cent., and they have seen a typical household bill exceed £100 a month. But now, 43 days before a general election, he has decided to do something and line up a few councils to face the guillotine, to demonstrate the firm hand of Government.
	This is not the firm hand of Government—it is the slaughter of the innocents. This is a gesture to the country that the Government have noticed its pain—pain caused by this Government. We do not need to take Opposition Members' word for it: let us listen to the Audit Commission, which says that the increase in council tax is due to national pay awards, unfunded obligations and changes in grant funding. Above all, it is because the Government's favourite stealth tax is the council tax. Those authorities have one thing in common: all charge a council tax that is well below that paid by the Prime Minister's, the Deputy Prime Minister's or the Minister's own constituents.
	Let us look briefly at one or two of those councils. Daventry had a council tax increase of £13.12. That figure remains £40 less than the neighbouring borough of Corby, which is run by Labour, and 10 per cent. of the increase came as a result of the withdrawal of the Government's housing subsidy. Let us look at Runnymede, which has the lowest council tax in Surrey; it is well below the Government's assumed, notional council tax figure, so the council is charging less than the Government think it should charge. The same applies to Aylesbury.
	Let us look at Huntingdonshire; its large council tax increase still results in a small council tax in comparison with neighbouring authorities. Huntingdonshire has the cheapest council tax of all district boroughs in Cambridgeshire. Let us look at South Cambridgeshire, which has a council tax of £140. Last year, it set a zero increase and its council tax lagged significantly behind others. The new level of £140 makes South Cambridgeshire one of the cheapest districts in the county. The same applies to Hambleton, which has the lowest council tax in North Yorkshire. North Dorset's council tax is the cheapest in Dorset. What about the curious case of Sedgemoor? According to figures produced by that council, it is charging £107, not £119. If that is the case, those figures are well outside the capping criteria. I hope the Minister will look again at Sedgemoor, given his Department's tendency to get things wrong.
	Will the cost of billing be greater than the saving in each of those authorities? Why is it acceptable for high-costing Labour authorities to continue to squeeze pensioners and hard-working families when these councils are being capped? How many of these councils are spending below the Government's notional council tax? How many are spending below the average notional council tax? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to advise local government to follow the herd instinct and avoid low increases because otherwise it will be penalised in future years? He is penalising an authority that had a zero increase last year. If capping is to be based on only 6 per cent. of budget and 5.5 per cent. of tax, will he tell me how this is different from crude and universal capping, because it looks like crude and universal capping to me? How many of these authorities received grants above the average grant that he cited?
	Frankly, this show trial of a statement fools nobody. It is petty, vindictive and pointless. It does not penalise those who have caused these massive increases in council tax—the Government—but in 43 days' time, the electorate will get an opportunity to judge and to penalise. In 43 days' time, bring it on.

Robert Walter: North Dorset district council has a council tax level of £79.50 for a band D taxpayer. The average for all districts across the country is £140. North Dorset's neighbouring local authority of Weymouth and Portland, in the Labour-held South Dorset constituency, has a council tax of £210. North Dorset is a well-run authority, but it has to cope with the new burdens that have been imposed on it by central Government. However, it will still have the lowest council tax of any local authority in Dorset, even after the increase. We heard the sideswipe from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) earlier, but the Liberal Democrats on the council actually wanted a council tax increase of 19 per cent.

Alan Whitehead: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his efforts to ensure that the vast majority of local authorities introduced moderate and reasonable council tax rises this year? Does he agree that part of his success is due to the availability of formula funding from his Department, which is enabling good settlements to be produced this year and, potentially, in the future? Has he reflected on the consequences for council tax rises, had that formula funding availability been frozen, perhaps for this year and next? Does he agree that it would have been very difficult, even for well-run local authorities, to introduce moderate council tax settlements if that had happened?

John Bercow: In light of the indefensible non-answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), why does not the Minister simply now acknowledge to the House what in his more reasonable moments he knows to be true—namely, that Aylesbury Vale district council is a moderate, prudent and responsible authority that simply seeks to sustain a decent network of services to local people in the face of a hostile Government, and that his decision to cap it while sparing all sorts of high-taxing Labour authorities that provide rotten services at rip-off prices, will convince no one and represents merely a grotesque abuse of power on his part?

Peter Lilley: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable annual limits to be set on immigration; and for connected purposes.
	Since this Government came to power, net immigration has trebled. Over the last six years, it has averaged 157,000 a year—equivalent to two constituencies needing to be housed every year, mostly in southern England. The Government's own projections show that net immigration to this country will add more than 5 million people to the population by 2031.
	A year ago, I started looking into the Government's housing targets, which are a major issue in my constituency. I had no intention of getting involved in the immigration issue, until I discovered that the Deputy Prime Minister's housing targets are driven by the Home Secretary's immigration policy.
	The Government have tried to give the impression that the main reason, apart from smaller households, for building millions of extra houses is movement from the rest of the UK to the south of England. In fact, this accounts for less than a tenth of the population growth in southern England. The most important factor is net immigration from abroad, largely to London, which results in a roughly equivalent number of Londoners of all races moving out to the home counties.
	The Government have finally admitted that net immigration will account for one third of all the additional households in the decades to come. One third is a significant figure, because, as the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier today, two thirds of his housing targets can be met on brownfield land, but one third—the same as the proportion of extra households resulting from net immigration—will have to be built on greenfield sites.
	Such matters are of legitimate public concern, but I hope that we can all agree that most immigrants are decent, hard-working, law-abiding people who want to make a positive contribution to this country just as British ethnic minorities already do. Indeed, as Conservatives, the Opposition particularly admire the enterprise and family values that they often exemplify. Therefore, why do we want to set a limit on the numbers of people coming into this country?
	I believe that some immigration enriches a country economically and culturally. Beyond a certain point, however, the benefits do not increase with numbers, whereas the costs do—notably, the pressures on housing and land. That is why it is essential to set a limit on the number of people coming to live and work here, as my Bill will make possible.
	Immigration is to the economy what oil is to one's car. It is a lubricant, not a fuel. Lack of oil damages one's car. Stopping all immigration would damage the economy, but beyond a certain point, adding more does not make it go better. Unfortunately, the Government have been under the illusion that immigration is the fuel of economic growth and have put their foot on the accelerator.
	The policy of the previous Conservative Government, spelled out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was Home Secretary, was
	"To restrict severely the numbers coming to live permanently or to work in the United Kingdom".
	Like most people, I assumed that that remained the objective of this Government, too. I therefore thought that the large rise in immigration was simply because they had tried to control immigration but failed. In fact, my researches revealed that the Government have been trying to encourage immigration and have succeeded.
	I spell out the evidence for that in my pamphlet, which I published yesterday, and it is threefold. First, an official Home Office document admits that
	"the government wants to encourage lawful migration into the country . . . sustaining and perhaps increasing current levels"—
	current levels that are already an all-time record. Secondly, the Government have written a letter to businesses—I have a copy with me—urging employers to bring in even low-skilled workers from outside Europe. Thirdly, they have relaxed the immigration rules in more than a dozen ways. As a result, the number entering on work permits, for example, has trebled and now dwarfs the number of asylum seekers granted refuge each year.
	The Government claim that mass immigration on that scale is economically essential. In fact, most economic experts disagree. The Government's favourite think-tank, the left-of-centre Institute for Public Policy Research, published a whole book on the subject, which concluded:
	"There is not a compelling long-term case for increased immigration purely in terms of economic benefits".
	In the pamphlet that I published yesterday, I examine the arguments that the Government use to justify unlimited immigration. All of them have two things in common. If they were valid, they would indeed mean that we should encourage immigration without limit. They are not valid. They are based largely on economic sleight of hand.
	First, the Prime Minister confuses growth in the size of the economy with growth in our standard of living. More workers make the economy bigger, but that does not make the average worker any better off. It might make the rich richer by giving them cheap nannies and builders, but it makes the less well-off poorer by holding down the pay of resident nurses, teachers, catering workers and so on. That might be the reason that the Government's policy of unlimited immigration goes down well among the glitterati but is less popular with former Labour voters.
	Secondly, the Prime Minister says that we have half a million vacancies, so we need immigration to fill them. Since he started saying that, we have imported half a million workers, yet we still have half a million vacancies. The reason for that is that immigration does not reduce job vacancies, because migrants not only produce goods and services but consume them, which requires yet more workers to produce good and services, so we end up chasing our tail.
	Thirdly, the Prime Minister claims that we need foreign workers to pay for our pensions in the decades ahead. But immigrants grow old, too. They will become pensioners precisely when the demographic problem is most acute. A United Nations study showed that to maintain the current ratio between working age and retired people in Britain would require more than a million immigrants a year. The Government's pensions tsar, Adair Turner, remarked,
	"You only have to look at these figures to realise that this scale of immigration is undesirable and impossible. Fortunately it is also unnecessary".
	There are types of immigration that are genuinely economically beneficial. In particular, international companies setting up new operations here often need to transfer staff with company-specific skills that they simply could not hire locally at any price. Those people might work here for a few years before typically returning home. Therefore, that does not result in a permanent increase in our population. Even if an annual limit were set such that there was a rough balance between those coming to work here and those returning or moving abroad, the flows in both directions would be measured in hundreds of thousands of people.
	We need to set an annual limit that allows that and other beneficial flows as well as accommodating our humanitarian obligations, and that brings a much better balance to our immigration policy. We can do so. We should do so. Above all, a clear limit would bring the transparency and openness that are essential if we are to rebuild public confidence in all communities about our immigration policy, after years of doing one thing while saying another. I urge the House to support my Bill.

Paul Goodman: We welcome this Disability Discrimination Bill, which builds upon the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that we introduced when in government. The Bill has been widely welcomed by disabled people and disability organisations, and we want to see it on the statute book. The Disability Rights Commission has applauded the work done by Conservatives in the other place in
	"getting this key disability rights legislation into such good shape. They have given it thorough scrutiny resulting in many positive gains for disabled people and are joining us in pressing for speedy enactment."
	However, although the Bill was quite a good one when it was first considered in another place—and although it is, as the DRC says, a much-improved Bill after that consideration—it comes very late in this Parliament. Because it comes so late, the House now looks as though it will have little opportunity, if any, to improve it further, though I note what the Secretary of State said. Many disabled people fear that the Bill may somehow be lost in the wash-up as the coming general election approaches, and not reach the statute book at all.
	I want to explain how that regrettable situation has come about. The Bill was first presaged as long ago as March 2001—four years ago—in "Towards Inclusion", the Government's final response to "From Exclusion to Inclusion", a report by the Disability Rights Task Force. In their response, the Government proposed, for example, that
	"HIV should count as a disability from diagnosis and that people with cancer should count as disabled from when the cancer is diagnosed as being likely to require substantial treatment."
	That proposal is duly encapsulated in clause 18 and it is but one example of the link between the Government's response four years ago and the present Bill. The Government's response then went to consultation.
	In its election manifesto some two months later, Labour said:
	"We are now committed to extending basic rights and opportunities, as indicated in our response to the Disability Rights Taskforce."
	The manifesto confirmed the Government's intention to bring a Bill before Parliament. Two and half years later in October 2003, the Government declared that a Bill on disability discrimination would complete its parliamentary passage before the next election—the coming election—and that a draft Bill would go before a Joint Committee of both Houses.
	At that point, many disabled people and disability organisations began to express heightened anxiety because they believed that the Joint Committee report and the Government response to it could push back the introduction of a Bill to the very late stages of this Parliament, and that scrutiny would therefore be telescoped and truncated. Those anxieties have been justified, because it looks as though that is exactly what will happen. We consider the Bill today on Second Reading. In other words, it has taken four years from the Government response to the taskforce report to the introduction of the Bill in the elected Chamber.
	Irrespective of what the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier today, a general election is expected on 5 May, so the House expects to be dissolved no later than 11 April. Furthermore, the Easter break lies between now and that date. The House is therefore unlikely—I put it no higher than that—to have a full Committee stage, if any, or a full Report stage, if any, in which further to improve the Bill by taking into account the suggestions for improvement that disability organisations have made.

Paul Goodman: I was asking simply for a timetable in relation to a concession that the Government have already made in another place. It is true that disabled people can be discriminated against regardless of the severity of the illness affecting them. As the hon. Lady would concede, they can be discriminated against simply because they have the condition in question, so it is right that such questions are raised.
	As I said, I want next to move to hate crimes. Clause 3 extends the duties of public authorities. Amendments made in the Lords strengthened the duties to promote positive attitudes towards disabled people, to tackle all forms of harassment and bullying, and to promote participation in public life. That is welcome. The Disability Rights Commission reports that hate crimes affect one in five disabled people, and Mencap reports that hate crimes affect nine out of 10 people with learning disabilities. When does the Minister anticipate that the Home Office will implement section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides for an increase in sentences for crimes aggravated by hostility based on a person's disability or sexual orientation?
	On transport, the Joint Committee recommended an end date on rail accessibility of 2017, together with a limited exemption system that would expire in 2005. Amendments accepted by the Government in the Lords, after much debate, set an end date of 2020 in the Bill. I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Higgins, who helped get an end date in the Bill by originally pressing the Government for 2017.
	An amendment to remove the power to make exemptions after 1 January 2020 was narrowly defeated in the Lords. The Disability Charities Consortium believes that that sends a strong signal that the Government need to state explicitly that any exemptions granted for the period after 1 January 2020 will have to be proportionate, necessary and for a very limited period only. We agree with the DRC that the 2020 end date must be a firm and definite deadline and that the exemptions procedure set out in clause 6(3) must not be allowed to offer a get-out clause to companies that fail to comply.
	That would usually be a matter that we would seek to explore with a Minister in Committee. However, since we are sadly not guaranteed a Committee stage—I am happy to give way to the Minister if she wants to confirm that there will be one—will she assure disabled people that the exemptions will be proportionate and necessary and last for a very limited period only? What guidance can she give them about how long that period is likely to be?
	The Government agreed during the passage of the Bill in another place to publish draft regulations to make changes to part 5 of the DDA in relation to transport. Will the Minister look again at public service vehicle accessibility regulations with a view to including a requirement for audio-visual provision on buses? At present, there is no provision in the regulations for such a requirement.
	The previous enforcement regime on train operating companies that operate inaccessible stock illegally was considered too severe. It has been replaced by a light-touch regulatory framework and a new regime of fines described in clause 8, but as yet the Government have given no indication of the scales that will be used to determine fines. Such information must be forthcoming if disabled people are to have confidence in the new framework. Will the Minister tell us how the fines will be calculated and how the Government will ensure that serious breaches will be more seriously punished? Can repeat fines be applied and, if so, how soon after the initial fine? What systems are in place for when a train company appeals against a fine?
	Finally on transport, the aviation and shipping industries will continue to operate under a code of practice on accessibility, unlike the rail and bus industries, which will operate under a legislative framework. The regulation powers set out in clause 5 allow the Government to make both codes statutory, but the draft regulations that were recently considered do not include aviation and shipping. The Government have indicated that they will await the outcome of research into both industries before taking further action. Will the Minister say when the first fruits of that research will be published? The House will aware that that is a sensitive issue, as the DCC has mustered some high-profile examples of discriminatory treatment, such as its claim that Brittany Ferries has a policy of not carrying assistance dogs unless they are confined to the car for the entire journey.
	I turn now to disability equality duties for schools. As the Secretary of State said, schools will be subject to the general anti-discrimination and pro-opportunity duties set out in clause 3. The question, which he touched on, is whether specific duties should be laid on schools, which would arguably boost outcomes for disabled children. I have heard it suggested that those duties should be in the Bill, rather than applied by regulation. Some 24 per cent. of disabled young people had no qualifications whatsoever in 2003, compared with an average of 11 per cent. for the same age group in the same year. The DRC argues, inter alia, that the lack of specific duties sends the message to schools that disability equality is not as important as race equality, and that that is inconsistent with and undermines achievement of the recommendations made by the Prime Minister's strategy unit, which are based on effective implementation of disability equality schemes.
	The DRC claims that Ministers originally intended schools to have such specific duties. It is certain that Baroness Hollis suggested on Report in another place that the way forward now is to review the existing policy and legislative framework in 18 months. It is suggested that there has been some tension on the issue—heaven forbid—between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education and Skills, and in particular the implementation review group in the DFES. That group was the only organisation to respond negatively to the consultation by the DWP last year.
	None the less, I welcome what the Secretary of State said about the regulations. We would be opposed to imposing unnecessary and unwelcome new duties on heads, teachers and governing bodies, so if any proposed specific duties were opposed by teachers, we would oppose them too. However, as the Secretary of State knows, it is striking that they do not seem to be opposed to such duties. The Special Educational Consortium to the TUC, National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers argues that such duties would actually reduce red tape. In ordinary circumstances—if I may refer to the timetable one more time—we would have hoped to explore the issue by tabling amendments in Committee or on Report but that course is unlikely to be open to us.
	We would also have hoped to table amendments to explore—I put it no more strongly than that—whether the DDA should be amended to enable cases concerning education discrimination in Scotland to be heard by the additional learning support tribunal for Scotland rather than the sheriff court, on the ground that tribunals are the most appropriate place to hear discrimination claims.
	The Bill also invites us to look ahead. The Government intend to set up a commission for equality and human rights and to absorb the DRC into that commission by October 2007. By that time, many provisions in the Bill will have been in place, we hope, for nearly a year. The Bill to introduce the commission is apparently due to receive its Second Reading in this House after Easter, so it has not yet passed through one House of Parliament, let alone two, and must consequently be unlikely to reach the statute book. We will want to examine that Bill closely, but we have already made it clear that we are deeply concerned by some of the possibilities opened up by the proposed abolition of the DRC. The commission is the guardian of the present Bill, and people with disabilities have special needs and requirements.

Tom Levitt: I am not sure that the DRC regards the present proposals as its abolition. There has been considerable consultation with all of the representative bodies—not just with the three existing strands that have commissions, but with the other strands that will be included in the 2006 regulations—which is why the equalities legislation is being introduced now. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the DRC has welcomed the consultation on the equalities commission and, as it now stands, is happy to go along with it?

Paul Goodman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the DRC expressed anxieties about protecting the role of disability work in the new commission. We await to see exactly what happens during the passage of the Bill. We want to reserve our position until the issues in that Bill have been fully explored, but we have no opposition to an equalities commission in principle.
	The barriers that prevent people with disabilities from participating on equal terms in modern Britain are formidable. There is concern that the distinctive identity mission and work of the DRC could be imperilled, which is why we look forward to discussions on the Bill.
	Consideration of Bills is necessarily a dry and dusty business, at least in part; clauses are examined, improvements are suggested and intentions are probed. There is far more to the Bill than the sum of its clauses. It is part of a story of legislation and action to try to ensure equal opportunities and social justice for disabled people. The source of that legislation and action is not Government, but disabled people and the wider community.
	Some progress has been made under the Governments of both main parties, although that progress is hard to measure. However, disabled people all too often remain an untapped source of talent and potential and all too frequently find themselves marginalised and excluded. We should remember that a disabled child is still less likely to survive birth than a non-disabled child. As a disabled child grows to be an adult, they are less likely than a non-disabled adult to gain qualifications, go to university, get a job, earn as much money, have easy access to transport or enjoy leisure activities. As a disabled adult ages, they are still less likely to enjoy the same income in retirement, access to the benefits system as quickly or live as long as a non-disabled person of the same age.
	Equal opportunities have not yet been realised. Perhaps they will always be work in progress, just as anti-discrimination legislation, like the Bill, is always work in progress and always capable of improvement. Although, sadly, the House may not have further opportunities to improve the Bill, it is part of a process of legislation and action to fight discrimination and to deliver better life chances for disabled people. We are grateful to have had the opportunity to play a part in that.

Anne Begg: That answers the point I am making that, by the time the Bill goes into Committee in this House, most of the serious work will have been done. Not only were serious amendments made to the draft Bill—the hon. Gentleman will agree that those amendments were welcome—it has been further amended in the other place. As a result of those amendments, the scrutiny remaining for this House to do is perhaps less than would normally follow Second Reading, Standing Committee and remaining stages in this House followed by those stages in another place. The Bill is at the end of that process and has gone through a lot more scrutiny than many other Bills would have had by this stage. The Government cannot be accused of lack of scrutiny on the Bill. I believe that everyone in this House wants the Bill on the statute book and I hope that it will go speedily through Standing Committee in this House.
	The Bill is the final missing piece in a jigsaw of equality legislation. It does not hang together easily because it is slightly bitty and covers different aspects, partly because of its purpose, which is to fill the gaps left by other legislation. Starting with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, we have seen that legislation works.
	Long before I was elected to this place, I was involved with a number of organisations for the disabled. I often met people who argued that to bring about the changes in people's attitudes to disabled people that we have seen in recent years required education and persuasion, not legislation. That argument was often used in this House against private Member's Bills. It was argued that the best way of changing attitudes and the way in which disabled people are perceived in society was not by legislation, certainly not heavy-handed legislation, but by education. However, we know that education and persuasion did not work. The 1995 Act proved that, when there is a framework of legislation, attitudes change more rapidly than with gentle persuasion or pointing out that things are wrong. That is mainly because in this country people want to abide by the law, and legislation can provide the framework or civic context that says that something is wrong. To discriminate against people because of their disability is wrong. To stop someone getting a job because they happen to have a disability is wrong. Without the context of legislation, people are not always sure what is right or wrong. Legislation has been proved to work and I am pleased that the Government are continuing to plug the gaps of the existing legislative framework.
	I do not want to go into the details of the Bill because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the framework very well in his speech, and I am conscious that other hon. Members want to scrutinise the Bill. I am most pleased about provisions covering, for example, private clubs. The fact that private clubs could discriminate against people with disabilities was always a huge gap in the provision. Guests and members of clubs with more than 25 members will be covered by the Bill.

Anne Begg: That is important because we want disabled people to play their full part in an equal society. That includes social life and engagement with other people who may not share a disability. For many disabled people the only clubs they could go to were those for disabled people where they would meet only people who shared some of the same problems. They want to be able to go to mainstream clubs. Just because someone has a disability, it does not mean that they necessarily share the same hobbies and interests as other people with disabilities. It would be absurd to assume that, but 30 years ago it was often assumed that if someone was severely disabled and in a wheelchair they would like to go along to a club to play draughts, dominoes and other passive pastimes.
	When I was teaching, one of my pupils said to me, "I think we should have clubs for disabled people, so that they could go along and play draughts or whatever. That's how we should get disabled people back into society." I asked that young girl if she would like to go to a club to play only draughts and dominoes. She said, "No, I would hate it." I said, "Well, I would hate it too." It took a wee while for the penny to drop that I as a disabled person—perhaps she did not regard me as a disabled person—would hate such a club. The limit of imagination about what disabled people are capable of doing often limits disabled people themselves.
	That story illustrates the perception of what disabled people could do on the part of those who are not disabled. However, I am glad to say that attitudes have changed immeasurably in recent years, thanks to this Government and the legislative framework. When the Bill was undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny, I received an email from a climbing club, which was concerned that if it was, as a private club, brought under the remit of the DDA it would have to make its huts—or bothies, as they are called in Scotland—accessible to people in wheelchairs, which would be an unreasonable cost. I pointed out to the club the test of reasonableness. If someone in a wheelchair could not get up the mountain to the hut, there would be no need to ensure wheelchair access. However, less than 5 per cent. of people with disabilities use wheelchairs and what the climbing club could no longer do was to discriminate against someone who was blind or had a limb missing, but who could still get up to a hut to stay the night. We often need to point out that people with disabilities have different disabilities and a raft of different access needs. It is important that private clubs are brought under the DDA, and the Bill will achieve that.
	Another important provision in the Bill concerns housing, especially in the rented sector. As the hon. Member for Wycombe pointed out, in the Joint Committee I was concerned about what happens when disabled people cannot get adjustments made to the access to their homes because it is along a communal path, up communal stairs or through some communal ground and the other people who have access object. That concern was based on the experience of one of my constituents, who had bought their own council flat, as had the person who lived upstairs—the properties were four-in-a-block flats. The upstairs neighbours objected to a ramp being installed up to the front door of the downstairs flat because it would have been along the communal path. That seemed grossly unfair. The Bill would not necessarily answer all such problems, but I welcome the fact that the DRC can act as mediator when relationships break down in such circumstances. That was what was missing in my constituent's case. No one had the ability to act as mediator to ensure that the changes could be made. I am glad that housing, especially in the rented sector, will be brought under the DDA by the Bill, because inevitably many disabled people live in the private rented sector and it is important that landlords have the duty not to block the aids and adaptations that may be necessary to allow disabled people to live in their own homes.
	I am also glad that councillors will be covered by the DDA under the Bill. As a disabled MP, I am probably already covered under employment legislation, so I cannot be discriminated against, although since I was elected I have not faced such discrimination. It is good, however, that councillors, who are not employees in the normal sense, will be covered.
	Perhaps the aspect of the Bill that will make the biggest change in the lives of disabled people is the inclusion of travel and transport. It was a huge gap in the original 1995 Act that transport was not regarded as a service, and it has been a perpetual bugbear for disabled people that transport is so difficult. Disabled people have difficulty getting around in the first place, and then they find that the vehicles that they may use are not adapted for their needs. That is a double whammy and feels like a particular insult.
	I noted that the Budget introduced free bus travel at off-peak times for disabled people in England, following Scotland's example. However, there is no point giving disabled people free bus travel if they cannot get on the buses in the first place. The imperative is to ensure that all new rolling stock is accessible. That will not be the case for coaches, and we need to do more work on that. When disabled people want to travel by bus using their free bus pass, they should have access. There is no point giving people extra freedoms if the transport providers have not come up to scratch.
	I am glad that the other place put into the Bill an end date for accessibility for rail rolling stock. I would have liked it to be earlier, and the Joint Committee recommended 2017 by splitting the difference between what the Government wanted and what the disabled organisations wanted, which was 2015. I was heartened to hear the Secretary of State reiterate that 2020 is an end date, not the date at which change must start. I hope that rail operators will recognise the economic advantages of providing accessible rolling stock. More disabled people will travel more, but so will those who accompany them. I always have somebody else with me, and if I cannot travel, they do not travel either. It is not only the disabled people, but their friends and families who are discriminated against. There is, therefore, an economic case for making all forms of transport accessible as soon as possible. That is crucial and I hope that the rail operators will take heed of it.
	The issue of education tribunals was raised by the hon. Member for Wycombe, with regard to what is happening in Scotland. Under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, the SEN provisions apply to England and Wales, but the civil rights provisions apply to the whole of Scotland, because education is a devolved function. Although education as a service was brought under the auspices of the DDA, how that was implemented was obviously left to the Scottish Executive.
	At the time, when disputes arose over a child's special educational needs, tribunals were to be set up in England and Wales to hear such cases, but the Scottish Parliament had not legislated for the equivalent provisions in Scotland. The only way that any argument over such access could be settled in Scotland was through the existing legal system—the sheriff courts—as SEN tribunals did not exist in Scotland at that time. Since then, the Scottish Parliament has legislated in respect of SEN. Such tribunals now exist with regard to SEN provision, but access issues must still go to sheriff courts.
	In the past day or so, I received an e-mail from the DRC in Scotland to say that, following constructive talks with members of the Scottish Executive, positive moves are taking place to set a time scale in Scotland to ensure that tribunals hear cases that relate to SEN provision, as well as cases where a child has been discriminated against because of a disability and perhaps not allowed to go to a certain school. The time scale has not yet been set, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government are in discussion with the relevant Ministers in the Scottish Executive to ensure that they have the powers to bring both sorts of dispute under the same type of tribunal hearing. I am sure that a solution can be found.
	There was some discussion about whether the House would need to pass the necessary legislation or whether that could be done by the Scottish Executive, but I hope that the Minister can assure us she is engaged with Ministers in the Scottish Executive to ensure that they have the powers they require to make that decision themselves. The decision has to lie with them and it is for them to make up their minds, but if any legislative quirk means that the relevant changes must be made by the House, I hope that they will be put in place when the time comes.
	Those are some of the things that I welcome in the Bill. There is a lot more in it—it has lots of little bits that fill in the various gaps—but it is worth remembering that the Bill is not the only thing that the Government are doing in relation to disability. Although the Bill will help to ensure that people will not be discriminated against on the grounds of their disability or for many other reasons, it is worth nothing that the Government are taking a great deal of action—for example, on employment—to ensure that disabled people play their full part in society and are not excluded.
	It is one thing to ensure that disabled people will not be discriminated against when they go for a job interview; it is another to ensure that they are properly equipped to go to that job interview in the first place and, indeed, that the job exists so that they can apply for it. All the other things that the Department for Work and Pensions is doing with regard to encouraging disabled people into the workplace—whether young disabled people or those who are sitting on incapacity benefit—cannot be divorced from these proposals. That work is crucial to ensure that disabled people can take advantage of the rights that the Bill will give to them. It is one thing to have the rights; it is another thing to be able to use them fully.
	I should like to raise another issue that has slipped past: genetic discrimination. I was delighted to hear that the moratorium on insurance companies gaining access to information about someone's genetic make-up in determining the policy that they will award has been extended. That is very important because, at some time in the future, the House may have to pass legislation saying that it is as wrong to discriminate on the grounds of genetics as on those of disability.
	I do not want to take up any more of the House's time at the moment, but I want to reiterate what both the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the hon. Member for Wycombe have said: it is absolutely crucial the Bill gets on to the statute book before the election because many of the rights that disabled people are still waiting to receive are included in the Bill. It will make a difference to people's lives. It will ensure that those of us who have a disability are not disadvantaged in the lives that we lead, and we will be able to hold our heads up high and go out and do what everyone else is doing.

Paul Holmes: Absolutely, although we are in danger of going off into the long debate about the social and medical models of disability. The social model indicates that disability is society's problem due to the obstacles that it puts in people's way, rather than the problem of the people affected.
	Several organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind and RADAR have put out responses to the ridiculous and demeaning article. I would be grateful to hear the Minister's response to it because she indicated earlier that she had read it.
	Every serious commentator inside and outside the House welcomes the Bill. No one wants it to fail at the last hurdle, which is why it is disappointing that the Bill was introduced late in the Parliament and that it is running up against the buffers of an imminent general election. The progress of the Bill could have been a superb model of how to pass legislation in the 21st century.
	The Bill first went before the Joint Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) has indicated that he did not think that that was such a good idea, but I disagree completely. I have taken part in pre-legislative scrutiny with the Education and Skills Committee on the School Transport Bill, for example, and I think that it is a welcome innovation that can do much to improve the way in which Parliament works and improves legislation.
	The pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill produced many suggestions about how to improve it and the Government accepted a great majority of them, although by no means every one. That process has led to major improvement to the Bill. However, I have never understood that pre-legislative scrutiny is supposed to replace one of the Houses of Parliament. An earlier speaker almost seemed to suggest that, given that the Bill had received pre-legislative scrutiny and gone through the House of Lords, there was no need for the House of Commons to play its part in the process. That is not the purpose of pre-legislative scrutiny. It was designed to add an additional stage to a Bill's consideration at an early time in its passage when the Government and the Opposition would not be entrenched in political stances and thus more open to accepting good, sensible suggestions. It allows legislation to be considered in a less partisan manner than is the tendency during the formal legislative process.

Anne Begg: I suspect that I am the hon. Member to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. I was not saying that I did not think that the Bill should complete each of its stages in this House, but that less time would required for its consideration because it had been discussed in the other place and by the Joint Committee. I was not trying to undermine this House, but pointing out that it is at the end of the process, not the beginning, which is the case with most other Bills.

Paul Holmes: I welcome the Minister's comments, but they lead into exactly the point that the Parkinson's Disease Society wishes to make. Exactly the same condition that applies to the MS sufferer who lost a discrimination case when everyone thought that the rules would apply in future to people with Parkinson's disease. Do we have to wait until somebody with Parkinson's disease goes to a tribunal or a court and loses before we look at changing the legislation, or are we adequately covered at this stage if we are naming only one neurological condition, MS, and not others, such as Parkinson's? Does that leave the Bill too open and too weak with regard to Parkinson's? The Minister is shaking her head; I am sure that she will reassure us later.

Paul Holmes: I thank the Minister; I am sure that the Parkinson's Disease Society will be happy to have that clarification on the record.
	My third point concerns schools, which play a major and fundamental role in shaping our society in a couple of ways, the first of which is access for all. Certain categories of children may be excluded from access to a good education because they are poor and qualify for free school meals, are in care—the Department for Education and Skills has expressed concern that children in care do not get a good deal on access to schools—or have special educational needs. Such children need just the same, if not more, access to schools as any other children. Otherwise, they will miss out on educational opportunity, finish their education with inferior qualifications, and have much less chance of going into satisfying and well paid careers and having a good life as adults. Schools are very important in respect of social inclusion and equal access to education.
	Secondly, schools are important in a more general way, because of the role that they play in socialising and forming attitudes among our young people, who are our future adults, business men, Members of Parliament, Ministers and so on. If all children are educated together where that is practical—I know that there are difficulties about how far that can go—they become, as children and later as adults, far more tolerant, understanding and accepting of differences, whatever they may be.
	I speak as one who was a teacher for 22 years. For 17 of those years, I worked in a school in the constituency of the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt)—at first it was a boys school, but then it merged with a local girls school to become a mixed comprehensive. In its two different incarnations, that school had a very good reputation for including children with special educational needs and disabilities. In the course of those years teaching in mainstream classes in a mainstream comprehensive, I taught children with fragile X syndrome, cerebral palsy, spina bifida and Down's syndrome, as well as children who were registered as 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. blind. That worked very successfully. Pupils simply accepted that such children were simply other children and, later, simply other adults. They accepted such conditions automatically because they had been exposed to them and experienced them all the way through. It was not a matter of separating people out into different categories by saying, "You go to a special school; you will never mix with anybody else." That is exactly how it should be. I can see hon. Members nodding.
	Ofsted has pointed out that, according to its inspections, up to 50 per cent. of schools are not completely fulfilling their obligations on social inclusion. I would argue, as I frequently have here and in the Select Committee, that one of the reasons for that is the pressure of league tables and testing. The Committee has repeatedly criticised that—for example, in its report on secondary education, which was published last Thursday morning, and in its report on school admissions and diversity of provision in schools, which was published last year. There is widespread concern about the whole area of social inclusion, not only the specific issue of children with disability or special education needs.
	Somebody said that the Bill is perfect. I do not think that the DRC would go quite that far, even if it feels that there is nothing else to change at this stage. The Disability Charities Consortium, which includes a very wide range of disability groups, does not agree. It is worried that while a general duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled children will apply to schools, it appears—this is reflected in what the Secretary of State said in his opening comments—that a specific duty will not be applied to schools even though it will be applied to councils, universities and further education colleges.

Paul Holmes: I welcome those comments. As I recall, the Secretary of State said that any such measures would be made much less onerous than those relating to race relations, for example.
	In relation to Ofsted's observations on schools that do not meet requirements on social inclusion, I draw on my experience in education and the numerous investigations by the Education and Skills Committee into secondary education over the past two years, which have led to critical reports by that Committee, although it is dominated by Government Members. I am concerned that unless the obligation on all schools—not only those that grasp such opportunities wholeheartedly, as many do—is crystal clear, this will not go as far as we want. At a recent meeting, representatives of the Disability Charities Consortium pointed out that the slow progress that many schools are making in implementing their duties under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 justifies their concern about what might happen in future.
	Many other matters, some of which have already been mentioned, would normally be considered in more detail in Committee, but I doubt that we will able to do that. I absolutely welcome and support what has been achieved by this good and much improved Bill as it has gone through the process from pre-legislative scrutiny onwards, and I regret that we will probably not be able to finish the job properly due to the imminent general election.

Gordon Marsden: I join all Members who have spoken so far, and no doubt those who will speak after me, in wholeheartedly welcoming the Bill.
	We all bring our different perspectives to a subject such as this and it is only fair for me to start, if the House will indulge me, by displaying the two main elements of mine. The first is personal, in that, for nearly 30 years, my mother has battled a very cruel and debilitating disability—osteoporosis. That started with an horrendous accident that she had about two days before my A-levels, which gives an idea of the time span. During that period, she has battled strongly, in a very feisty way, and has probably taught me as much as I learned, before becoming a Member of Parliament, about the practicalities, limitations and challenges of being disabled, particularly with that disability.
	Osteoporosis affects around one in two women over the age of 50 and, as people are increasingly aware, one in five men over the age of 50. Sadly, just as haemophilia can have disastrous effects on people as regards the blood, osteoporosis does the same with bones. Despite all that, my mother has managed to battle her disabilities with great perseverance. Over the years, she has managed to travel to the Holy Land and other places by air—the aviation aspects of the Bill are particularly welcome.
	I pay tribute to the National Osteoporosis Society, which has battled tirelessly to raise awareness of the condition, and to its local representatives in the Blackpool and Fylde area—Jean Marsh and others—who have lobbied tirelessly.
	Of course, my mother would not have been able to do much of what she did without the support and devoted contribution of my late father as her carer. That is an important aspect that we should bear in mind when considering the Bill. Carers are the glue that binds together many disabled people's self-esteem. In many cases, they are the people who help disabled people to maintain their struggle for quality of life. It is right that we should remember the relatives, friends and, indeed, thousands of young people—often teenagers—who act as carers.
	The Carers National Association does a great job, as does the carers association in Blackpool. I was delighted to support the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004, successfully promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis). The Bill is for carers as well as for disabled people. It will help to encourage and empower many carers and people with disabilities.
	A second influence that underpins my commitment in this field has been my experience as Member of Parliament for Blackpool, South. Disabilities are a major issue in seaside and coastal towns, because they have a larger than average number of older people who are more prone to disabilities. Furthermore, a larger than average number of people with health problems and disabilities move to such towns. If I might gently point out, in a wholly non-partisan fashion, that is not always fully recognised in funding formulae.
	In Blackpool, 37 per cent. of my constituents have a limiting long-term illness and 11,600 of them receive disability living allowance or attendance allowance, which gives some indication of the issues in my constituency.

Tim Boswell: Like others who have contributed to this debate, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) made some constructive points in relation to education and leisure, and was also right to highlight the importance of carers and the large role of all the voluntary organisations in the field of disability which protect the various interests and people concerned. His remarks were entirely consistent with the general tone of this debate and the deserved welcome that the Bill has received from all quarters of the House. I am no exception to that: I am pleased that the Bill is being discussed today. I would have no problems with its passage into legislation, and would not seek to frustrate it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), in a speech of some breadth and complexity, prefaced his remarks with some of the parliamentary history of the scrutiny of this legislation. It is not necessary to revisit all those points, except to say that the House will know that I had Front-Bench responsibilities for these matters for my party before he did, and I had the same experience as he had of trying to persuade the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), to get on with it, and of warning her what might happen if progress was not made. We now have a pistol to our head. It would be mistaken of Ministers, the Disability Rights Commission or whoever, to assume, in the mode of a reactionary Member of the House prior to the Reform Act of 1832, that the British constitution was so perfect that no possible amendment could be considered. Quite a lot remains to be considered in terms of the various interests, including points that have been made today, and that is why I would very much welcome detailed scrutiny of the Bill in Committee, although, sadly, that might not happen.
	Perhaps my last contentious point is that what has happened with this Bill has, in a sense, been a paradigm of the marginalisation of disability issues more generally. This Bill comes very much at the end of the queue in relation to consideration by this House, although it is not the only such Bill. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe reminded the House, the last time that we considered such matters strategically was on European election day. I, the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), to whose contribution we look forward, and others—coincidentally, with a strong representation from the east midlands, partly because we all had all-postal ballots—spoke on that day and felt strongly about the issue. If that happens in the House, perhaps it is merely a paradigm of what happens elsewhere.
	Having taken an interest in disability matters in the House for some six years, apart from those as a constituency Member, my impression is that there are two parties. There is a minority party, which is represented on both sides of the House, who take an active interest and wish to promote these issues—Members from both sides of the House have said generously that this is an all-party effort, through the disability group and otherwise—and a much larger number of people on whom these matters do not impinge day to day. If it is difficult to create awareness in this place, how much more difficult it is to create it among service providers or users outside. That is part of the role of legislation, to which I will return in a moment.
	In closing my remarks on the legislative history, it would be fair to say—from time to time Ministers show generosity, and I note the remarks made by Baroness Hollis in the other place about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—that this is not an oppositionist issue.
	We are not emerging from darkness into light. Social progress in this country, in many contexts, is secured through the progressive activities and influences of different Governments building on each other's experience. If we can claim credit for the 1995 Act, the Minister can equally claim credit for the Disability Rights Commission, for the extension to education in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, and indeed for this Bill. There is no need to argue about it; we are on the same side in seeking progressive improvement.
	We should also record our gratitude to those who have helped to lay the foundations for these additional changes: the Disability Rights Task Force and the Disability Rights Commission. When the commission was first established, I was, as it were, the Minister's opposite number. I proceeded with a reasonable degree of healthy scepticism, needing to be convinced; and I was convinced—that the commission were doing a good job in a sensitive way, and was an active force for good. I say that unequivocally, because I believe it to be true. Along with the task force and its well known report, it has looked at the operation of the 1995 Act and improved it.
	I hope the Minister will not think I am trying to put her down when I say that a parliamentary analogy could be drawn with Ministers' alleged argument in favour of the European constitution. Some of the Bill is a tidying-up exercise to deal with areas that have not been properly covered, but—in a spirit of bipartisanship, or multi-partisanship—I concede that it makes at least two major advances. First, I think we are all pleased to see that real progress has been made in improving transport. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who spoke interestingly from direct experience of disability, rightly said that mobility was an important component of the empowerment of disabled people and the improvement of their lot. Secondly, clause 3 and other parts of the Bill give public authorities a general duty to promote disability equality and the interests of disabled people.
	Those are important issues, but the transport issue is not straightforward. It is fair to say that a private sector provider of goods and services is bound by reasonable adjustments. As disability interests have been able to demonstrate, there are ways of making such adjustments that are affordable and sensible, and I would endorse such an approach. In the case of major public sector provision, however, it can be quite expensive, and objectives may occasionally overlap or clash.
	There are only two railway stations in my constituency, both very small. One is Kings Sutton, the other Long Buckby. One is unmanned; the other has someone there in the mornings. They are both very much Victorian stations. The cross-line access at Kings Sutton is soon to be improved, but the problem with both stations is that the platforms are rather short. The problem with altering rolling stock—in the entirely commendable and desirable interests of mobility—is that it tends to require more space. Trains may have to be longer to retain the same capacity. Trains are getting longer in any case, to meet the capacity of stations. Unless and until single-door control is introduced, it will be difficult to achieve a service at those stations. If they are closed for that or another reason, such as the rather poor access arrangements, the alternative is to go to a railhead in the town, which may not serve the interests of disabled people. I rehearse those as the sorts of difficulty that may be encountered, which is why I understand that Ministers will want some time to get this done. I hope that they are determined to press on and to make sure that it is done.
	As regards the general duty, I am reassured by, and take comfort from, the fact that although there were some stern duties under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, it seems to have worked well. I have never had to deal with an adverse case or report from a constituent, and it is reassuring that it is possible to produce such duties without a backlash, if I might put it that way.
	There are some technical differences between disability duties and awareness on the one hand and those related to racism and sexism. To use an analogy, it has always struck me that the difference between racism and disability compliance and awareness is a bit like the difference between digital and analogue. Broadly, either one is a racist or one is not, and there is a clear decision, one way or the other. In relation to disability awareness, the situation is more complex because the questions tend to include whether adjustments were considered, made and reasonable. There is much more feedback in terms of whether the action taken is appropriate.
	In relation to gender preference, there is an intermediate position because the Minister, from her experience of employment law, will know that it is possible to be judged to have discriminated indirectly through for example the differential operation of the qualifying period for an employment tribunal, in terms of the length of time one has been at work. These are complex issues and it would be wrong and unnecessary—from the experience of race relations legislation—to seek to run away from giving the duties to public bodies, which I welcome.
	I appreciate that the Equality Bill has now been given its Second Reading date and I rather anticipate making a contribution on that Bill as well. It would therefore be inappropriate to make a Second Reading speech on that subject now. I have listened to the exchanges and various interventions on the DRC's attitude to the Equality Commission, and we have made a good deal of progress. However, in considering that legislation, as and when it moves towards the statute book, it is necessary to make sure that the particular features of disability are properly covered. There is already provision for a commissioner, but there is also a need for a body of expertise and the resources to meet the needs of, as well as safeguards for, disability interests in a single commission. No one would be happy with a situation where we legislated to put everything together and then found that none of the single strands was being adequately catered for.
	There is greater complexity in relation to the nature of reasonable adjustments as against having a simple on-off test for whether or not someone is compliant in relation to discrimination matters. There is more work to be done there and the DRC and some of the studies to which Ministers have referred will help to take that agenda forward.
	An interesting issue that interacts with the one of public duties is that in disability matters, even more than in other equality issues, there is an interaction of different providers. It may be that a particular provider wants to do something and is perfectly prepared to comply with the duty, but other aspects of the jigsaw are not put together. We all know from our constituents how difficult it is for people to deal with disability issues. There could be legal complications for an individual provider accused of not seeking to promote the interests of disabled people, because even if the situation was not their fault and somebody else was responsible, the service, in effect, would not be being provided, regardless of whose legal fault it was.
	The second issue, about which I feel very strongly, is that we need to pay much more attention to the different forums of enforcement and the relative difficulty of carrying out enforcement within them. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South mentioned the Scottish legal system and the sheriff court. She clearly implied that that was a more difficult process than using a special educational needs tribunal, which I can understand. Of course, under English legislation, schools are dealt with through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, but further education and higher education are not, so a distinction remains in that regard. A few years ago, the Royal National Institute of the Blind did some work on the part 2 duties relating to employment. Such duties are dealt with by the tribunal, whereas part 3 duties relating to goods and services are dealt with by the county court. It seems highly implausible that there is more discrimination in one area than in the other, so that issue has to be looked at.
	Finally, there is the question of bringing all this together in a single body of legislation, taking into account people's human rights. The Government are seeking to amalgamate the various institutions and, I concede, trying to preserve disability as one of the essential strands. However, we need to look at the wider human rights agenda. I will offer for free to the Government an insight prompted by a former Labour Secretary of State, Dick Crossman, some 40 years ago. He said of rents, "What we want is rents that are fair." Public bodies, in dealing with citizens—whether or not they have a particular disability or equality issue—should be expected to treat them decently. How one puts that into law and adjudicates on it I do not know, but there is still a great deal to be done in that regard.
	I acknowledge that, here, the law is an important participant, and it has two functions, the first of which is declaratory. Its first function is to say that we as a society are not prepared to put up with some of our citizens being treated as second-class citizens. Its second function is to deal not just with businesses that make honest efforts, but in particular with those that say, "We do not want to get involved in all this; it is not for us, you know." It must make sure that that attitude is rooted out and if necessary punished. But at the same time it must try to encourage those who want to help to take a positive attitude, to take advice, and above all to consider the necessary adjustments that must be made, and to take forward the agenda of serving our disabled and other minority constituents. So law has a function, but I advise the House against saying that this Bill will in itself transform the situation. Although it will help and be another brick in the edifice, it will not conclude the building.
	I do not often quote others commenting on me, but I was rather proud to be described in a parliamentary sketch of some 18 months ago—the phrase related to another aspect of the equality agenda, and I enjoyed it after I thought about it—as "relentlessly inclusionist". I am quite happy about that, because we should be relentlessly inclusionist; indeed, I hope and think that everybody in this Chamber is so. We should work to ensure that it becomes a matter of course that all our citizens are empowered, included and given the opportunity to give of their best: to make their own contribution to the economic, social and cultural life of this country, and to take all the benefits that we take for granted. We do not necessarily need to treat them in a special way to do that. The more we can approximate to that situation, the better. We need the underpinning of law, but we also need the right assumptions and attitudes to become a normal part of life. I am not a Marxist—I would not be sitting on these Opposition Benches if I were—though I might be more of a sceptic, but if we could see all the business surrounding equality withering away, no one would be happier than me.

Tom Levitt: My point is that the 1995 Act contained huge gaps that need to be filled. I shall say more about them in a moment, but I accept that a process of evolution was under way. I do not understand why the Government of the day committed themselves so firmly to opposing private Member's Bills on disability discrimination put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). Their Bills were all very sensible, but they were all thwarted.
	I also mentioned in a previous intervention the long delays in the DDA, such that parts of the Act, had we not addressed them, would still not have been implemented even now. They include part III on access to goods and services. Indeed, as that legislation stood in 1995 in terms of employment rights for disabled people, it affected only about 6 per cent. of all businesses—I think that that figure is right. The small firms exemption meant that the vast majority of businesses were not obliged to take the needs of disabled employees and prospective employees into account.
	The DDA set up the National Disability Council, which gave some disabled people a forum, but I do not believe that that body, ably led by David Grayson, would ever have been as effective as the disability rights taskforce. When that was created, as soon as this Government came to office, it had a momentum to it, precisely because the doors were then seen to be open to ensuring that civil rights for disabled people became a reality.
	I was privileged to serve on the Committees that examined the Disability Rights Commission Bill and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill. In their turn, they both added to the power of disabled people to achieve their civil rights and plugged holes in the DDA. We also implemented part III of the DDA and removed the small firms exemption, so that 100 per cent. of businesses are now covered by the rules.
	The Bill addresses many of the remaining gaps in provision. I am particularly pleased to see that councillors are included for the first time. I actually wrote a pamphlet on the subject of councillors and disabled access in 1995, so I was 10 years before my time, but I am glad to see that its recommendations will now be enforced.
	The Bill also addresses transport. Again, there must be a lead-in time, which must be a compromise between the ability of the providers of transport services to respond and the urgency of fulfilling those civil rights needs. I believe that we have got the balance about right on that.
	The Bill removes many exemptions from the previous legislation and, to pick up the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), I am pleased about private clubs. It is fair to say that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), after his private Member's Bill did not succeed either last year or the year before, can nevertheless be pleased to see how the spirit of that proposal has been introduced into the Bill that we see before us.
	The duty to promote good relations is essential, and the duty to promote the civil rights of disabled people exists on not just local but all public authorities. I am sure that, considering how the debate has gone in the past 10 years, we have seen the cart before the horse. A momentum already exists, but the Bill will ensure that no public authority will lag behind.
	Alongside the civil rights legislation that we have had over the years, we have changed part M of the building regulations to make buildings more disabled accessible. The new deal for disabled people has helped 200,000 people have the dignity of work, and now for the first time more than 50 per cent. of disabled people are in employment and many more are seeking opportunities to earn through work. The vast improvements in the funding for the access-to-work schemes also enabled that to come about.
	There are still some holes in the legislation, and I would like to mention three of them. One relates to an issue that I wanted to push strongly in the scrutiny Committee, which is the situation of volunteers. I understand why the Bill may not be the most appropriate place to include provisions on that, but it must be said that we have rights for employees and prospective employees who are disabled, and the role of volunteers nowadays in many organisations is very much akin to that of employees. Many volunteers are doing work experience and many are gaining experience as part of achieving a qualification. Many have an understanding with their employers that is close to being a contract of employment. However, to argue at this stage that we should extend the disability rights legislation to cover volunteers would ignore the fact that sex equality legislation and race equality legislation do not apply to volunteers. Perhaps the Equality Bill would be a better place in which to ensure comprehensive protection for volunteers against unjustified discrimination when their role is akin to employees. I was pleased to have had the opportunity in the scrutiny Committee to explore that possibility and to make the case for extending disability discrimination legislation to volunteers.
	We heard earlier about the scrutiny Committee's statistics and, in addition to the contributions of its members, the quality and enthusiasm of the witnesses, including my hon. Friend the Minister, who appeared before it were very high. That was the only time I have been a member of a scrutiny Committee and it was rewarding, fulfilling and, looking back, valuable. It was appropriate for that Committee to scrutinise the Bill.
	The second matter that I want to refer to is housing about which the scrutiny Committee raised issues and made recommendations, although many of them were not taken forward. I am pleased that matters relating to common areas in shared properties will be reviewed. I want to make one suggestion, which would not require legislation. We have part M of the building regulations, we have disabled facilities grants—which cover funding for extensions and alterations to properties—to set standards and the concept of lifetime homes has become a reality in the design of properties. Can we be assured that the standards that those three different criteria apply to those three different concepts are consistent and that lifetime homes, disabled facilities grants and part M all seek to point developments and alterations in the same direction and to produce the same level of access.
	I heard what hon. Members have said about not having a Second Reading debate on the Equality Bill now, but I am pleased with the debate on the new equality commission. I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) when, as Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, and subsequently at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, she was responsible for the early days of that legislation and the article 13 legislation, so I have been involved in the debate on the equality commission for some time. I was originally a sceptic and did not believe that it would be possible to take on board the historic and particular needs of the three existing strands for which commissions exist and merge them with the three article 13 strands. However, I was wrong. I said that there had to be clear horizontal and vertical structures so that if I were being discriminated against by harassment, irrespective of whether it was because I was disabled or because of my gender and so on, I should have access to the best legal advice on harassment from the commission. That horizontal strand is just as important as saying that a disabled person should have access to people who are experts on disability.
	I now look forward with optimism because the process has worked. In particular, the views of disabled people and the Disability Rights Commission have been taken on board in moving towards the equality commission.
	I want to celebrate two other Government achievements because I have had a close personal involvement in both. One is the roll-out of digital hearing aids in the NHS, managed by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People at a time when I was a trustee of that organisation. That was an excellent example of partnership between Government and the voluntary sector and will be seen as a real emancipation of people with hearing impairments. The other is the recognition of British sign language. The Government not only recognised it as a language, but provided funding to give some reality to what is meant by recognition. I looked back through Hansard and discovered that I called for such recognition in an Adjournment debate in 1999, but better late than never. Recognition is an excellent step forward for the 50,000 people in this country whose first language is sign language.
	If we look back 10 years, not many people could be said to be public role models for disabled people. That situation has changed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the former Home Secretary, is one example and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) is another, but I wish to put on record a few other names. The reputation of Peter White, the Radio 4 presenter who is blind, as a journalist has grown and grown over the years. People such as Heather Mills have taken on high profile positions, not necessarily on disability issues—rightly, in many cases. They have shown that disabled people can be in the limelight and carry it off. I know a little about stand-up comedy—but that is a story for another day—and there are now several disabled comedians, including a deaf comedian, who are well established on the circuit. Of course, only in the past few days, Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson has had her contribution to public life recognised. I also welcome the fact that as we all pull together towards London 2012, it is being made clear that it is a bid not only for the Olympics but for the disabled Olympics.
	That all shows that public opinion has moved on in 10 years and perhaps, as the hon. Member for Daventry suggested, the 1995 Act opened a few doors. It could have done more, but we have now made up for many of the omissions. In that respect, I regard the Bill as a consolidating measure that will make progress in some areas and put right some matters that had not been put right in the past. I am certain that every party in the House will co-operate to ensure that the Bill gets a fair and appropriate hearing in the next few weeks and that the ambitions expressed today that it becomes legislation as quickly as possible reach fruition.

Richard Spring: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am pleased to do so and I know that various disability organisations are delighted that this debate is taking place and we are making progress. As we have heard from many hon. Members this afternoon, there is a real desire to see the legislation on the statute book.
	It is curious how one becomes interested in a subject. In the case of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), who spoke movingly about his mother, the cause was his personal family conditions. It is not something that has affected my own family, but in 1992 when I became a Member of Parliament I had a secretary who was quite severely disabled. It is extraordinary how the facilities in the Palace of Westminster, however imperfect, have moved on in the 13 years since I have been an MP. It was seeing life through my secretary's eyes that gave me an abiding interest in this subject. I saw the difficulties that life presented for her in many respects in this particular place of employment, as well as the bureaucracy that she had to face on many different levels, and that is why I have continued to take an interest in the subject.
	That is why in 1995, when the original Disability Discrimination Act was passed, I felt it was a welcome step forward, and I certainly supported it because it was the first attempt by a British Government to legislate on the concept and principle of disability discrimination. It gave disabled people a right not to be discriminated against in employment and a right of access to goods, facilities, financial services and the transport infrastructure.
	I entirely take the point made by the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) that, as we look back over 10 years, we can see that the 1995 Act was imperfect and that there are gaps to fill. Indeed, that process has moved on, but we can equally say that it was important legislation that changed attitudes, and it was certainly radical in dealing with discrimination against disabled people. I therefore have some pride in the then Government's achievement at that time. When I saw for myself the results of that legislation, I became interested and started to make contacts as an MP with groups that were speaking for various causes related to disability. I was able, as I know many hon. Members were also able to do, to assist them in achieving results such as wheelchair access and in changing the culture of understanding so that people became aware of the needs of people with disabilities. That was an important moment.
	Today, however, after seeing the effects of the 1995 Act over what is quite a lengthy period, it is certainly clear that we need to amend the existing legislation to meet the considerable challenges that people with disabilities must overcome. It is disappointing, however, that the introduction of the Bill has been left quite late, although, of course, I support it in principle. I know that my Opposition colleagues and, indeed, others would have valued extra time to consider the Bill, and in a sense, this is something of a missed opportunity.
	Many hon. Members have lived with disability at first hand, whether directly or indirectly, and are perhaps in a unique or special position to scrutinise the Bill with the expertise that arises from their own experience, but many of us who are not in that position may nevertheless have had temporary experience of mobility problems. Others will have regularly accompanied wheelchair users and people with mobility problems and have experiences of the difficulties that disabled people face—a point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). That is why the provisions in the Bill that relate to transport are so welcome. Inaccessible transport has a major impact on disabled people's independence, social participation and employability. Some 60 per cent. of households with a disabled member do not have access to a car, so access to the public transport system is a crucial part of many disabled people's lives. Of course, that is doubly the case in rural areas, where public transport is limited. The Bill represents a step towards a public transport system that is more accessible for all disabled people.
	Many hon. Members may have spoken to representatives of the disabilities charity consortium—the DCC—about the Bill's contents. As we know, the DCC is an informal coalition consisting of Leonard Cheshire, Mencap, Mind, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Royal National Institute of the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and Scope. They, like me, believe that constructive debates in the other place have resulted in a much improved Bill and some very valuable results for disabled people. However, they still have some concerns that relate to transport, and I should like to make these points now in the hope of encouraging further response.
	Although the rail and bus industries will have to comply with a legislative framework, the aviation and shipping industries currently operate voluntary codes of practice on accessibility. The DCC believes that the voluntary codes have not proved fully effective in improving services for disabled people. The regulation-making powers in the Bill will allow the Government to make both those codes statutory. Indeed, the Joint Committee that considered the draft Disability Discrimination Bill reported that:
	"The Committee received a significant amount of evidence which suggests that voluntary compliance is not currently effective".
	I understand that the Government wish to wait until later this year to see the results of research on compliance with voluntary arrangements that are designed to secure better access to air and sea transport for disabled people. If that is still the case, will the Minister comment on that specific matter?
	There are numerous examples of airlines and ferry companies acting thoughtlessly and inappropriately towards disabled passengers and thus causing a great deal of embarrassment and anxiety, so that needs to be resolved as quickly as possible. Will the Minister explain the situation regarding the exemption from statutory regulations and tell us how she thinks the matter can be addressed? I share the DCC's concerns about the effectiveness of existing disability equality training programmes in the transport industry. It is important that people who work on buses, trains and the underground are fully aware of the needs of disabled passengers. Perhaps the Minister will also comment on that matter during her winding-up speech.
	Disabilities are not always visible. I was pleased that a modest Opposition amendment on depression was agreed to on Report in the House of Lords. Mental health is often overlooked in anti-discrimination policies and rules, so I congratulate my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale on tabling the amendment. I echo the appeal made by the DCC and
	"urge the Government to retain the amendment and do not do so simply because of the time constraints that have been imposed on the Bill but also because they recognise the case for the amendment."
	Under section 1 of the 1995 Act, a person's impairment must have
	"a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities"
	to fit the definition of a disability. An impairment is defined as "long-term" if it has lasted for at least 12 months, or if it is likely to have a substantial effect for at least 12 months. The provisions in the Act designed to cover recurrence have not been effective in the case of depression, although I know that the Secretary of State commented on that and I understand that he talked about a Green Paper on the matter. However, according to the website www.psychdirect.com, the risk of recurrence of an episode of depression within a five-year period is as much as 70 per cent.
	Depression carries a huge stigma, so it is important that the Bill recognises that. Let me quote from a briefing sent to me from the DCC:
	"People who have recovered from an episode of depression can find that they never find paid work again yet their ability to work is not reduced in any way except by prejudice. A recent study found that where two job applications, one disclosing a diagnosis of diabetes the other one of depression, were submitted to 200 personnel managers, the 'applicant' with depression had significantly reduced chances of employment. Discrimination can short-circuit the process of recovery for those who have undergone depression, it can undermine self-esteem and exacerbate the illness. This destructive cycle brings about, above all, suffering for individuals, but also a loss of talent for society and cost to the public purse in health/social care and welfare benefits."
	In light of that compelling argument, I ask the Minister to build on the comments made by the Secretary of State and reflect on the amendment tabled by Lord Skelmersdale, which deserves to be supported.
	The final aspect of the Bill on which I wish to comment relates to the way the Government have declined to give a firm commitment to include schools in the specific disability equality duties in the Bill. The Secretary of State spoke about anti-discrimination and a general duty in the public sector that there should be proportionality, which is absolutely understood. However, he implied that such specific duties in the Bill would place an extra burden on schools. Teaching unions, such as the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, have stated during consultation that they would welcome the specific duties in Bill being applied to schools. According to Ofsted and a recent report from the Prime Minister's strategy unit, some schools are failing disabled children. Just one of the many saddening statistics from the Disability Rights Commission is that 27 per cent. of disabled people aged between 16 and 24 have no qualifications whatever. That compares with 12 per cent. of non-disabled people at the same age. The Government have recognised that more needs to be done to support disabled children in school.
	We are all agreed that the public sector duty at the heart of the legislation will make a tremendous difference for disabled people. I am told by disability organisations, however, that it will be very hard in practice for schools to comply with their general duty without having specific duties in the Bill to guide them.

Tim Loughton: The premise on which the Government made their disability proposals was that a new Bill, such as the one we are debating, was necessary to consolidate existing legislation and to take forward the disability reform programme. It has taken a long time and it is especially unfortunate that we are discussing the measure at the fag end of this Parliament. All the supporters of the Bill, inside and outside this place, have expressed concern that at best there will be minimal time for scrutiny and at worst that time will not be sufficient before the axe of the likely general election falls. None of us wants the Bill to go to waste, but that is not to say that more scrutiny should not be undertaken to improve it further.
	We all agree on the need to consolidate legislation on disability discrimination 10 years on from the original Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) when he had ministerial responsibilities for disabilities. I applaud the work done in another place, especially by my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale, who described the measure as
	"a needed Bill which could be made better".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 2004; Vol. 667, c. 675.]
	Many of the actions of the upper House have made the Bill better, and I hope that the Government will respect those amendments.
	Much can be improved through better regulation and the Minister rightly pointed out the good work that has been done through regulation rather than through primary legislation. I do not want to diminish that in any way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, all Governments can take pride in, and claim credit for, building on a progressive foundation, started in 1995, for a much better deal for people with disabilities.
	Definitions of disabilities, the way we treat disabilities and our social vision of disabilities have changed enormously just in the 10 years since the original Act, and it is right that legislation should keep up with both changing attitudes and changing physical and mental conditions. It is not merely about the visible physical illnesses with which people too often purely associate disability; it is about a whole range of mental conditions. I am pleased that they are mentioned in the Bill and I shall return to that point.
	We need to be realistic about what is workable, however, and what will take business and the community at large with it, given that many of the new duties under the 1995 Act came into force only last October due to the long lead-in time. Several Members commented on that. I certainly agree with the proposed long lead-in times for some of the public transport considerations. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) was right to welcome the emphasis on public transport, which is so essential for many people with disabilities, especially in rural areas.
	I welcome the amendments made by Conservative peers to put an end date of 2020 on the Bill, although I should have liked that to be rather sooner. I reiterate the point that I made earlier about the lifetime of rail franchises. It is unacceptable that our constituents and those of us who use the train to travel between our homes and our constituencies still have to travel on slam-door trains from the 1950s. That still happens all too often on the south coast line, despite the fact that we have been through at least two train operators since privatisation. Any new bidders for the franchise should do so on the basis that from day one of their operation all their rolling stock will be disability-friendly and that slam-door trains will disappear, because their demise is long overdue. They are exceedingly unfriendly to anyone with any sort of disability. The obscenity of people in wheelchairs having to travel in the guard's van like a piece of luggage is also an entirely outdated concept that we should reject sooner than 2020.
	A couple of years ago, a constituent of mine who is a civil servant was travelling up to London on one of the local services from Worthing. She is in a wheelchair. She was eventually able to arrange for someone to get her on to the train at Worthing station, which has a ramp, although it is not always available. However, the station in London at which she wanted to get off did not have a disability ramp available on the northbound platform. She had to go all the way up to Luton in order to get off the train. I am afraid that she did not spend much time there, although I am sure that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) would agree that she would have had a delightful time if she had.
	My constituent then had to come all the way back to the London station at which she had originally intended to get off, where there was a disability ramp only on the southbound platform. That is absolute nonsense. Whoever was responsible had picked on the wrong person, however, because it so happened that my constituent was a member of the Government's Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, so the matter was reported straight away to the appropriate powers. That sort of thing still happens far too often, however. We need much greater clarity and transparency in the way in which new rolling stock and new disability-friendly public transport is coming on stream. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk mentioned some of the atrocities that take place when people in wheelchairs or people with other disabilities try to get on to cheap flights, which really are not geared up for dealing with the large market of disabled people who enjoy going on holiday abroad just as much as anyone else.
	I welcome the measures in the Bill that deal with local authorities and other public bodies. The Local Government Association has said in its briefing, however, that it wants to
	"ensure that the administrative burdens resulting from this bill will be kept to a minimum. Where possible we would like to see timescales and processes aligned to allow authorities to develop generic equality schemes."
	The LGA also believes that
	"the provision to bring councillors within the scope of the DDA is long overdue, and we are happy to see clarity now given to the category of law occupied by disabled councillors. Local councillors will be better able to perform their community leadership role if there is no ambiguity about their treatment in law."
	I entirely agree with that.
	In many cases, local authorities could do more, and that is often a problem of funding. On several occasions, however, I have pushed a constituent around Worthing or other towns in my constituency in a wheelchair, just to see how easy it was to find disabled ramps—to go into the tourist information office, for example. I have found ramps set at an angle of about 45°. It was a struggle for me to push a little old lady in a wheelchair up such a ramp; imagine what it would be like for a little old lady pushing her husband, for example. It would be completely impossible. The provision of such ramps is tokenism; in practice, they are not doing the job that they are supposed to do. Local authorities could be more proactive in having local audits of disability access. It should be question not of saying, "We've got the ramp; we can tick the box", but of asking, "Does that ramp actually work? Why aren't people using it? How can we improve it?"
	In places such as Worthing, several people have mentioned problems relating to gaining access to the beach. Disabled people enjoy the beach just as much as the rest of us, but just let them try to get on to it. At the moment, a very large investment is being made in the sea defences in my constituency, which I very much welcome. This has involved large quantities of shingle being bulldozed up to the beach, the construction of rock groynes, and so on. That is fantastic for keeping the sea out of my constituents' front gardens, but very bad for enabling people with disabilities to get on to the beach to enjoy the facilities there. It has proved nigh on impossible for me to get the Environment Agency, the local council or whoever to devise a scheme whereby people—not just those with disabilities or those with extreme disabilities who may be in a wheelchair, but elderly people with sticks and parents with children in pushchairs—can gain access to facilities that we all like to enjoy, such as the beach. A lot more can be done.
	We must also consider problems with social services departments, which are spending a lot of money and finding their budgets enormously squeezed. That is the case in West Sussex, where there was no real increase in spending on social services this year. They are, quite rightly, having to spend money to make adaptations so that people with disabilities can stay in their homes. Government policy is for more people to be able to stay in their homes longer—that is absolutely right, if it can be achieved—rather than, as the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, previously Secretary of State for Health, have described, elderly people being banged up in residential homes.
	Well, it is horses for courses. Residential or nursing homes provide an excellent essential service for those people for whom it is appropriate. For those who are able, it is fantastic to be able to stay at home for longer and to have that encouraged, but this can happen in practice only if those facilities are available in homes so that people can look after themselves and have the support of home care visits and all that goes with them.
	Social services departments are having their budgets squeezed, however, so this problem does not arise through a lack of desire to make those houses disabled-friendly. Often, they are not getting the extra money for that from a Government who are forcing them to allow more people to stay at home, even if in some cases that might not be entirely appropriate for the person concerned.
	We need greater education and awareness among the public on disability issues and on getting rid of stigma for people with disabilities. That is certainly appropriate for local authorities when dealing with social housing, looking after people with learning disabilities and handling school allocations for people with disabilities. So, the extra requirements in the Bill are welcome, but this is another example of placing extra requirements and resource implications on local authorities without necessarily providing the resources to make them possible and practical.
	I return to the point that several hon. Members have made about the apparent exclusion of all the duties on schools and echo the request from my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk that the Minister makes this point crystal clear in her winding-up speech. Clearly, not only Members of the House, but many well-informed bodies outside are confused about exactly what will be required of schools in respect of their disability obligations.
	For example, the Children's Society briefing says:
	"We recognise that schools are subject to a range of existing legislation and guidance in respect of special educational needs. However this is no substitute for clear and unequivocal regulations and guidance setting out schools duties.
	Schools are at very different stages of meeting their current obligations and many disabled children. The recent Ofsted report "Special educational needs and disability: towards inclusive schools" published in October 2004 highlighted that over half the schools visited had no accessibility plans and that only a minority of mainstream schools meet special needs very well. More recent research involving interviews with LEA officers in 2004 shows that progress is slow and limited for disabled children in schools and that pupils with special educational needs are still losing out on admissions policies and practices."
	The Disabilities Charities Consortium, in responding on why it thinks specific duties on schools are needed in the Bill, says:
	"Schools have a particularly important role in promoting disability equality because of their unique influencing role on future generations. They provide the bedrock for disabled individuals' opportunities in future life.
	We know that the schools system is currently not delivering equality of opportunity for disabled pupils. For example, 27 per cent. of disabled people aged 16–24 have no qualifications whatsoever, compared to 12 per cent. of non-disabled people of the same age, disabled people aged 18 are only 40 per cent. as likely to go to university as their non-disabled peers".
	It continues:
	"The Government's reluctance to impose the same specific duties on schools as on other public bodies means that unlike other public bodies, schools will not have to produce Disability Equality Schemes, involving disabled people in the process, nor will they have to monitor and report on their progress."

Tim Loughton: I think that the Minister is now saying something different. She is talking about regulations that none of us have seen, and about a consultation exercise that does not form part of this legislation. That is why there is confusion. I have asked her a specific question as to how our fears can be allayed by the legislation, and that provision is not in place. It is only fair that such concerns should be aired. We will need clear guidance as to the form in which she suggests that the regulations will appear, when they will appear and how they will interact with this legislation. That is a fair point, and that is why Members have raised the concern time and again, much to her annoyance. Such concerns are legitimate, however.
	In relation to education, I welcome the clauses dealing with the general qualifications bodies. I have a particular concern, as an officer of the all-party deafness group and having visited a deaf school recently, about some of the changes that some examining bodies have made, which would disadvantage seriously those with deafness. Previously, such people have been accommodated much more generously when taking exams. Perhaps the Minister will tell me, when she winds up, whether such considerations will now be included in the part of the Bill on general qualifications bodies.
	Deafness is a disability that affects many of our constituents. I hosted recently a reception in the House by the deafness group, Sign, which does a lot of good work, particularly for deaf people with mental illness problems, too. It has produced some fantastic innovations and projects, including a software program that can be distributed to every GP in the country for the price of £10 per year, in which a signer in video form on a laptop screen goes through a list of symptoms and possible illnesses, pointing to parts of the body and so on. It is a simple and clever way of enabling a doctor who has no sign language to communicate with a deaf person. It also has applications for people who speak a different language, as a translatable version is possible.
	In relation to mental illness, uniquely, patients have had to prove that their illness is clinically well recognised to secure the protection of the DDA. I welcome the amendments tabled in the upper House to deal with that, as it affects an awful lot of people. One in four of the population will experience a mental illness problem at some time in their life. One in 10 children now suffers from mental illness, much of which is related to depression. It is still a very big stigma. More of a stigma is probably attached to mental illness than to any other disability or physical condition. On the day on which the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Bill—of which I was a member—has produced its rather damning report, I must say that I fear the Government's proposals will do nothing to reduce that stigma. Indeed, in their present form they would do the opposite.
	There is a big shortage of not just acute beds but cognitive behavioural therapy and other alternatives to drug treatment, especially counselling. I hope that some measures in the Bill will make it easier for people with mental illness to gain access to such services. Mental health has been very poorly served by anti-discrimination legislation. The Disability Charities Consortium says:
	"These provisions cause real problems for people with depression . . . depression is typically severe though relatively short-lived but discrimination against the person is commonplace . . . once there is a medical record of having had depression in the past, however distant or short-lived, discrimination is common."
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) gave figures demonstrating how difficult it is for such people to find jobs. There are the "revolving door" patients who go into residential accommodation for treatment, then recover, leave the accommodation and may be able to secure straightforward jobs for a time, but then relapse and have to return. The DCC continues:
	"However case law has shown that this provision is not effective in the case of depression. There are differences of view within the medical profession as to whether (and when) episodes of depression are manifestations of an underlying condition and when they are discrete episodes. As a result experts often disagree in court on the issues. Furthermore, doctors often, understandably, feel reluctant to testify that a person with a first episode is likely to have a recurrence."
	The risk of a recurrence of an episode of depression within a five-year period is as high as 70 per cent., which is a problem for people wanting to enter employment.
	In this more than any other context, we need a joined-up approach to, for example, helping people with mental illness back into housing when they have been in residential accommodation. I am particularly concerned about what the Government are doing with the supported housing project. According to a parliamentary answer from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister today, some 12,000 individuals and households benefit from the supporting people programme, which is now to be cut. In Worthing, in my part of west Sussex, it will be cut by some 30 per cent. Many people with mental illness problems who have benefited greatly from that project will not be able to do so any more, and I think that that has severe implications. I urge the Government to think again about trying to reverse the amendments on depression that were made in another place.
	At the same time as introducing regulations, restrictions and duties on public bodies such as local authorities and schools, we should bear in mind the enormous amount of good practice that goes on. We should do all that we can to encourage such good practice. It need not be costly. One of the best examples is provided by the store B&Q, which showed itself to be enlightened and progressive when it saw a niche market and became much more disabled-friendly—just as, some time earlier, it had become more environmentally friendly.
	To a greater extent than many other large retailers, B&Q has a policy of encouraging the employment of people with disabilities—people with physical disabilities who may be in wheelchairs, and people with learning disabilities. Surprise, surprise, it has found that such people make rather more reliable and hard-working members of staff than some others. Surprise, surprise, it has found that it takes a larger share of the disabled customer base because people see that it is disability-friendly—and not only in terms of providing wheelchairs, situating signs at a lower level and providing large print signs, and not only because it employs people with disabilities. Disabled people like to shop there and B&Q has made a commercial success out of being disability-friendly. If only many more retailers and businesses followed that example! We should not only be imposing more regulations: we should be pointing to the attractions and benefits for everybody—it is a win-win situation—from encouraging good practice among businesses that become disability-friendly.
	There are more things in the Bill to be scrutinised and it would benefit from more time in Committee than I fear it will get if the general election is on 5 May. I do not take the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South that a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee is in some way a substitute for this Chamber or the upper Chamber having a full opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. It is complementary to the process and helps to prepare the Bill before it comes to this place. However, it will deserve no less scrutiny because of that process when it goes through the upper House or this Chamber.
	The Government need to come out with further details, but I join all Members who have spoken in this excellent debate in welcoming the Bill and in hoping that it will get on to the statute book before the general election. I hope also that the benefits that it will bring can be enjoyed by our many of our constituents who have disabilities as soon as possible.

Maria Eagle: I thought that my introductory remarks were relatively subdued and gentle. I am not going to be drawn into discussing the draft mental health legislation. I am trying to explain to the House, as I have been asked to do, why we are considering reversing the amendment on depression. Members can agree or disagree, but I am simply explaining it to the House.
	We do not believe that it is sensible to extend the law in respect of just one type of condition or to breach the principle of long-term conditions on which the legislation is based. Now is not the right time to do that. Conservative Members should realise that this is not the end of the road for disability rights. It is not as if there will be no further opportunities to tweak and improve legislation . I hope that I have dealt with the matter of depression.
	The hon. Member for Wycombe and others raised the issue of cancer and, in particular, whether the regulations should exclude certain types. I understand the concern of many people both in and outside the House, but I want to stress that we are carrying out the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force, on which we consulted. The results of that consultation showed that 87 per cent. of respondents approved of the policy. These concerns have been raised with us rather late in the day. That does not mean that they are unreasonable—I fully understand them, as I said—but in deciding whether to include those whom a reasonable person would not view as disabled, we have to achieve a balance. That is what we are trying to do.
	We are trying to move forward on this matter by undertaking to seek evidence about stigma relating to the conditions that we propose to exclude in the regulations. We shall also have detailed discussions with organisations outside the House, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), to establish any evidence of stigma. If any evidence is forthcoming, we are open to persuasion and we have said that the regulation-making power will not be used until we are absolutely clear about the issue of stigma. We have consulted on five different types of cancer.
	I believe that that provides a positive way forward and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House are reassured that this is not a matter that we have come up with at a late stage to cause confusion or a stir. The Disability Rights Task Force made the recommendation, we consulted on it and 87 per cent. of respondents agreed with it. We will, of course, take account of any further concerns and the Secretary of State made it clear in his opening remarks that we intend to be as positive as possible. There is no intention to cause unnecessary complexity or to leave out people who should be included just for the sake of it.

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend raises the issue of better quality information for passengers. Many train operators are getting much better than they used to be, and they are beginning to realise that disabled people have a lot of money to spend, that they like to travel as much as anybody else and that excluding them from transport services excludes not only the disabled people but often their entire family from a journey. We are seeing an increasing realisation of that among businesses and that is something that we want to encourage.
	The other big issue raised during the debate concerned how the general and specific duties would apply to schools. I kept trying to be clear, although I appear to have failed to convince hon. Members about how clear I was. The general duties are in the Bill, and the specific duties will be in regulation-making powers. The Department consulted on how they will apply last year and draft regulations set out how the specific duties are intended to work. We have consulted on those regulations, which are in the Library, so there is some indication of what the duties will consist of. They will cover matters such as a disability equality scheme, demonstrating that disabled people have been involved in producing the scheme and action plan, setting out a plan of action to make improvements, and other such arrangements.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in his introduction to the debate that the specific duties will apply to schools and the Bill has never been about trying to place onerous burdens on anybody, whether schools or any other public sector body. It is not about trying to ensure that public sector bodies are engaged in bureaucratic form-filling and box-ticking but ensuring that we design out institutional discrimination from the way in which our public sector works. Such discrimination is often one of the biggest obstacles to disabled people in their attempt to live ordinary lives: to access services and goods, to go to work and to do all the things that the rest of us take for granted.

Maria Eagle: Discussions take place between Departments all the time—that is about all that I can say. Of course we will discuss with colleagues across Government how such measures work and how they are implemented.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made an excellent contribution, based as ever on her personal experience. She is much respected in this House as someone who has more right than most to speak on the issue. She welcomed the legislation and gave some examples from her constituency of some other difficult issues that the Bill tries to tackle, such as housing. I acknowledge that the Bill does not deal fully with housing for disabled people. It was never intended to, and civil rights legislation is not the only way in which the issue can be tackled. However, I hope that, as others have done, she will welcome our move to try to make some progress in dealing with the issue of common parts in housing. Housing for disabled people is one of the most difficult issues that remains to be dealt with. The Disability Rights Task Force did not deal with common parts in its recommendations and we will have to return to the matter, whether in civil rights legislation or elsewhere. We must get better at ensuring that disabled people can access housing. As society ages, as more of us become disabled and as young disabled people live longer, the matter cannot be left. It remains unfinished business.
	The Bill makes progress because, for the first time, the concept of civil rights applies to the landlord and tenant relationship, although it does not cover common parts. The working group that my Department established to look at progress on common parts could be a positive way of looking at next steps. We hope that it will return to Ministers by the end of the year with recommendations on how to go forward.
	My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), who has a distinguished record of speaking on these issues in the House and served on the Joint Committee—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South—made his usual robust contribution, which made my gentle musings about the Opposition's record seem mild. I enjoyed his speech and, as ever, he emphasised issues of concern to deaf people on which he has an excellent record in the House.
	The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) generally welcomed the Bill and I was pleased to hear that. He made it clear that some organisations representing local government also welcomed it and I am also pleased about that because the public sector duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people applies not only to central Government, but to local government. I was heartened that local government organisations, as well as Whitehall Departments, recognise that we need to do better. The public sector duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people could make a real difference to their lives during the next few years, so I was pleased to hear that his party supports the Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the lack of an equalities Act and I heard what he said. He knows that a review is considering some of the issues and I would not want to pre-empt any recommendations that it might make. After some of the extensive revisions to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the article 13 regulations, the legislation is ripe for consolidation because it will be virtually unreadable for lawyers, never mind lay people, by the time the Bill is enacted. We will have to return to that.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) came to the issue through the experience of a member of his staff, which is a typical way in which hon. Members come to believe that the issue is important. He stressed the general and specific duties and whether they apply to schools. I hope that I have been able to answer his questions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) also came to the issue through personal experience, but in his case it was family experience. He emphasised a point that no other hon. Member had raised, but with which we all agree—that carers are important to disabled people. We all know and accept that from our constituency experience. He gave credit to many local organisations for disabled people in his constituency, which is an experience that many of us in the House can relate to. We all know organisations for disabled people in our constituencies that do invaluable work daily to support disabled people and to ensure that their voices are heard, although disabled people are increasingly doing that themselves.
	My hon. Friend praised a local journalist, as opposed to what might be described as the less than praise for a national journalist that we heard from the hon. Member for Chesterfield in relation to an article in The Times today. I read the article by Alice Miles and what struck me most was the lack of any kind of analysis of the point that discrimination might be occurring. That is the problem I had with the article, but it is clear that not all journalists are as unenlightened. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South was able to illustrate that with reports of a local journalist who does sterling work in his constituency.
	Other hon. Members referred with approbation to the extension of the legislation to private clubs. Of course that includes political parties, and the Bill will challenge and test all of us to ensure that we put our money where our mouths are and change the way in which we relate to our own members—because we are member organisations—so that we do not exclude disabled people. It is daunting in many ways, because the Bill will place far more obligations on all of us as members of private clubs, which we all are as members of political parties. We are taking on some difficult issues and we have to ensure that we get them right.
	The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made his usual thoughtful speech, although I cannot agree with him that the Bill has been delayed. I understand why Opposition Members have claimed that, but the Bill has been improved by the extensive consultation. We need to get it right, because such legislation will be successful only if it gains general support within society. There is no point having theoretical rights on the statute book that do not have the approbation of those upon whom they place obligations. The Bill is now balanced from that point of view. It has been widely consulted on and will be much more widely accepted as a result.
	The Bill plugs gaps that need dealing with, such as the transport exemption from part 3, the non-application of the law to councillors and private clubs, which includes political parties, and the functions of public authorities not already covered by the service and employment provisions. It also strengthens and improves the effectiveness of our anti-discrimination laws.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who is in his place and who was involved in the issue from the start. He established the Disability Rights Task Force and, as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, he was assiduous in ensuring that the legislation made progress.

Dave Watts: I think that my hon. Friend would agree that his constituency has many similarities with mine. We have a very high proportion of people with all sorts of illnesses caused by the area's industrial past of coal, chemicals and so on. Does not that place on those social services departments a much higher burden than many others have to bear, which means that there are fewer resources for these facilities?

David Drew: I am sorry that I missed the early part of my hon. Friend's speech, but I completely concur with what he is saying. Would he accept that the problems are added to by the fact that the hospice movement, by its very nature, tends to draw most of its funds from local sources? Children's hospices have to draw their funds from a much larger area, and turf wars can develop out there. This means that they can lose out quite badly if they are perceived to be encroaching on local adult hospices' areas. This leads to quite an unpleasant situation, and can add to the problems related to funding from PCTs.

Stephen Ladyman: It is not and the national service framework will take the work even further. It has been identified by experts as the world's leading description of a health service for children, and the health services of the world are now coming to us to learn how we went about writing it. They will use it as a model to try to move their health services forward. My hon. Friends and I can be proud of what the Government have done on children's health services.

Stephen Ladyman: I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend the guarantee that he seeks. I can give him the guarantee—I believe that it is the duty of any Health Minister to give it—that every child who needs palliative care will receive it. We have to make a judgment on the needs of the individual child, irrespective of whether the care is delivered in the hospice movement, in hospital, at home or in any other environment. What primary care trusts must do is ensure that they have a framework in place whereby they can guarantee that every child in the area will receive the individualised palliative care that is necessary. As I said, whether or not that happens through the hospice movement is a matter for the PCT to decide.
	I can guarantee for my hon. Friend that we have described what the palliative care should look like, and I shall say a little more about that in a few moments. Once the national service framework is implemented, I guarantee that every child will get palliative care as required. The Government are committed to maintaining that if we continue to be responsible for these matters. We can give this guarantee: every child will get the palliative care, because we will implement the NSF for children. Whether that translates into a general uplift of funding for the hospice movement, however, is not a guarantee that I can offer. It may well do, but I cannot guarantee it. My guarantee applies to the outcomes and relates to the quality of life and health of our children.
	As to the negotiations, I recognise what my hon. Friend said about the problem of engaging with multiple PCTs, but I can suggest two mechanisms to help resolve it. First, in many areas within a strategic health authority, the PCTs—they are used to commissioning specialist services that cross many boundaries—will often appoint one PCT as the lead negotiator.
	Secondly, I can suggest a new mechanism. It has not been used in connection with children's palliative care, but there is no reason why it cannot. My hon. Friend will know that the Government introduced the Children Act 2004, under which a director of children's services has a duty to examine services for children across an entire local authority area. One of those duties is to co-operate with PCTs in developing plans for children's services. It applies vice-versa, as PCTs have a duty to co-operate with the director of children's services. If such a director believes that there are gaps in the palliative care provision in the local area, he may instruct PCTs to deal with the gap in their local delivery plans. That could lead to increased support for a local hospice movement and the PCT could even decide that the most practical person to lead the negotiations with the local hospice movement is the new director. The mechanism has not yet been used because the directors are only just being appointed, but there is no reason why it cannot.
	For all those reasons, I do not believe that a centrally imposed formula for hospice funding or a general uplift is the right way forward. Nor, in my view, could an uplift in funding be based on some predetermined linkage to adult hospices or a pre-set percentage of hospice running costs, rather than on allowing the level of NHS funding to be determined by the NHS commissioning arrangements.
	I share my hon. Friend's desire to see the children's hospice movement succeed, but I cannot agree with centrally designed solutions. Children's palliative care needs go far beyond centrally imposed solutions. A primary care trust could not be expected to ensure a proper balance of provision or full availability of home care in the area if it were told that, irrespective of what it needs, it must fund an arbitrary proportion of hospice costs even though it had no strategic role in planning those hospices or commissioning their services.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough has to remember that the money all comes out of the same pot. If we insist that more money goes into the hospice movement, there will be less left in the pot for other forms of children's palliative care.
	Directing PCTs to fund hospices by some given percentage would unbalance the essential mix of care. Favouring hospice care over home care could diminish the latter. We would also be acting as if we were more aware of the changing dynamics of local demand than PCTs, and that is not the case.
	That does not mean that the centre is without a role in securing the right level of hospice services. That is why, in September 2004, we launched the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services. It includes a module focused on support for the disabled child, with a section specifically setting out our vision for palliative care and the support of children with life-threatening illness. It clearly identifies that high-quality palliative care services should be available for all children and young people who need them.
	The NSF notes that palliative care services are provided by a network of agencies, including the NHS, children's hospices, the voluntary sector, and the social care and education services. Co-ordination and close liaison between agencies is therefore essential. It also notes the importance that we attach to recognising the changing needs of young people receiving palliative care as they move through and on from children's services.
	The NSF makes it clear that local authorities, PCTs and NHS trusts are to ensure that palliative care services provide high-quality, sensitive support that takes account of the physical, emotional and practical needs of children or young people, and their families, including siblings. Services must be sensitive to the cultural and spiritual needs of the child, young person and family. Services must also maximise choice, independence and creativity to promote quality of life, and they must be delivered where the child and family want—in the home, hospital, hospice, or other setting. Services must include the prompt availability of equipment to support care, access to appropriate translation services, and workers skilled in using communication aids.
	Palliative and terminal care services must be regularly reviewed with parents or carers, children and young people, and gaps in provision identified and addressed. Short-term breaks, palliative and community health services and social care services for children and young people with life-limiting conditions and/or complex health needs must be planned in partnership with voluntary sector providers and children and young people's hospices, in those localities where they exist.
	All these basic standards are set out in the NSF and, as I said earlier, their achievement is mandatory for the NHS by 2014. To help in achieving this standard, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough that we will soon be publishing a practical guide to children's palliative care for PCTs, reinforcing the need to commission a range of services to meet the palliative care needs of local children. That is a new announcement, so my hon. Friend has achieved something this evening.
	In conclusion, I am mindful of the invaluable contribution that children's hospices make towards the needs of children and young people who have life-threatening illness. However, I firmly believe that they will be served best by a partnership between the NHS and voluntary sector organisations that continues to value the contribution that both sectors can make, and that funding and planning decisions are best made locally by people who know the local area.
	I suspect that I have still not convinced my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, but I have done my best, and that is all that I can do.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Seven o'clock.